Chess coach: I’m not a cheater!
By Kathianne Boniello
November 16, 2013 | 11:28pm
A Long Island man claims he was kicked off Chess.com and slapped with a scarlet “C” — for chess cheat.
“I was put on a cheater list,” chess teacher Henry Despres claims in a lawsuit. “Everyone on the site could see this. I, of course, never cheated.”
Despres is claiming in a Brooklyn federal court suit that he is owed an apology, along with $200,000 damages because of defamation, libel and the loss of chess lessons and book sales.
Chess.com did not return a message seeking comment.
Source: http://nypost.com
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
This is not good.
How did he work out damages were worth $200,000?
I think that it is a brilliant riposte! Good luck Henry Despres!!
I think that it is a brilliant riposte! Good luck Henry Despres!!
i strongly believe he does cheat5
They don’t ban unless their 99% sure my feeling is this will get tossed.
This could well be interesting.
A number of chess sites with anti-cheating practices routinely close accounts without giving a public reason for why. But Chess.com and a few others keep a ‘cheaters list.’
Because the methodology is not public, there is no appeal process, and the public accusation is published, the charge of libel is in fact something that the sites need to defend against.
What’s going to be rather interesting about this is that in order to prove that they did not libel someone, they’ll have to provide their anti-cheating methodology to the courts. After all, the validity of their methodology is going to be the central question.
“the charge of libel is in fact something that the sites need to defend against.”
No,
Sites like Chess.com are careful to include an indemnity clause as part of the terms for joining the site a user agrees not to sue them or make a claim against them or their employees when he or she accepts.
Majority of the players are learning through computers these days, so they are bound to make moves suggested by popular engines (esp free ones).
With that in mind I wonder how can chess.com, or any other website, decide who has used the help of a computer to win and who has not?
It is akin to saying that Magnus Carlsen uses Houdini to make moves on the board, simply because the engine suggests exactly the same moves – notwithstanding the fact that a move at depth of 10-12 is more often than not the same move at the 20-22 depth.
Majority of the players are learning through computers these days, so they are bound to make moves suggested by popular engines (esp free ones).
With that in mind I wonder how can chess.com, or any other website, decide who has used the help of a computer to win and who has not?
It is akin to saying that Magnus Carlsen uses Houdini to make moves on the board, simply because the engine suggests exactly the same moves – notwithstanding the fact that a move at depth of 10-12 is more often than not the same move at the 20-22 depth.
Haha, balderdash.